Loading…
Systems that keep a small team on the mission instead of the spreadsheet.
Signal
Live workflowMost nonprofit operations run on a handful of people, a shared drive, and whatever tools were affordable at the time.
The public-facing forms work. Behind them, submissions create new records instead of matching the person already there, and shifts or roles attach to the wrong entry.
Member records sit in separate bases, so nobody can see who attended which event, joined which programme or was nominated for what, and every event needs invites and reminders sent by hand.
Expense data arrives by category and someone sorts it by hand, grant by grant, while contract values and drawdowns are answered by searching inboxes rather than opening a record.
The setup was inherited from someone who has moved on. It is undocumented, visibility depends on who has the link, and the team is maintaining infrastructure it never designed.
Tight budgets, one-person operations teams and volunteer turnover change what a sensible build looks like. These are the rules we work to.
Scoped to the grant or budget that exists, and quoted before any work starts
Built on tools you already fund, including free tiers, wherever they will hold
Sponsors, funders and volunteers submit data without needing a paid licence
Tested with real volunteers or submitters before it goes live
Handed over with a written guide aimed at a non-technical owner
Simple enough that the next coordinator can run it without calling us
Sign-ups match existing people instead of duplicating them, shifts land where they should, and confirmations and calendar invitations go out on their own, from the organisation’s calendar rather than one person’s.
Every member in one place, linked to the events they attended, the programmes they joined and the awards they were put forward for, with invitations and reminders sent automatically to the right list.
Every grant with its funder, value, dates and stage, a budget built once by cost element, and actuals and vendor drawdowns updating it as data arrives.
A form or import mapped to the categories your sponsor already reports on, so monthly data lands linked to the right grant. The submitter needs no licence or account.
Every build is handed over with a written guide to how it works and the few things that stay with you each week, so the next coordinator inherits a system, not a mystery.
The cost shows up as time, duplicated work, and decisions waiting on someone to assemble the data.
people own every system
Operations, data and reporting sit with the same people, so anything manual competes directly with programme work.
reports rebuilt by hand
Funder and fiscal sponsor reports arrive, then get reshaped in a spreadsheet before anyone can read anything useful from them.
grant in a different file
Budgets, drawdowns and vendor contracts live across spreadsheets and shared links, so "where are we against budget?" takes an afternoon.
Usually yes, because manual operations cost most for the one or two people who can least afford the time. The smallest engagements fix one broken workflow rather than rebuilding everything.
Yes, and it is a common starting point. We map what exists, keep what works, restructure what does not, and hand the result back documented, so the next person inherits something they can actually run.
Yes. Grant tracking, budget versus actual and monthly sponsor data are a common build. If the sponsor report only exists as a PDF, extracting it needs an extra step, which we scope separately before building anything.
We scope to the budget that exists and say plainly what fits inside it. Smaller pieces of work are quoted as single scoped fixes rather than programmes. Tell us the constraint on the call and we will work to it.
A single scoped fix is often done inside a week or two. Rebuilding volunteer, member or grant operations is typically a few weeks, including testing with real users before go-live. Contact us with what is breaking.
Join teams who reclaimed 18+ hours/week.
